Here is Bishop Williamson's latest EC. One particular passage I found quite astonishing.

Quote:

POPES FALLIBLE

Neither liberals nor sedevacantists appreciate being told that they are like heads and tails of the same coin, but it is true. For instance, neither of them can conceive of a third alternative. See for instance in his Letter to Three Bishops of April 14, 2012 , how Bishop Fellay could see no alternative to his liberalism except sedevacantism. Conversely, for many a sedevacantist if one accepts that any of the Conciliar Popes has really been Pope, then one can only be a liberal, and if one criticises sedevacantism, then one is promoting liberalism. But not at all!

Why not? Because both of them are making the same error of exaggerating the Pope’s infallibility. Why? Might it be because both of them are modern men who believe more in persons than in institutions? And why should that be a feature of modern men? Because from more or less Protestantism onwards, fewer and fewer institutions have truly sought the common good, while more and more seek some private interest such as money (my claim on you), which of course diminishes our respect for them. For instance, good men saved for a while the rotten institution of modern banking from having immediately all its evil effects, but the rotten banksters are at last showing what the institutions of fractional reserve banking and central banks were, in themselves, from the beginning. The Devil is in modern structures, thanks to the enemies of God and man.

So it is understandable if modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the Pope and too little in the Church, and here is the answer to that reader who asked me why I do not write about infallibility in the same way that the classic Catholic theology manuals do. Those manuals are marvellous in their way, but they were all written before Vatican II, and they tended to attach to the Pope an infallibility which belongs to the Church. For instance, the summit of infallibility is liable to be presented in the manuals as a solemn definition by the Pope, or by Pope with Council, but in any case by the Pope. The liberal-sedevacantist dilemma has been the consequence and, as it were, a punishment of this tendency to overrate the person and underrate the institution, because the Church is no merely human institution.

For, firstly, the Solemn Magisterium’s snow-cap on the Ordinary Magisterium’s mountain is its summit only in a very limited way – it is completely supported by the rock summit beneath the snow. And secondly, by the Church’s most authoritative text on infallibility, the Definition of the truly Catholic Council of Vatican I (1870), we know that the Pope’s infallibility comes from the Church, and not the other way round. When the Pope engages all four conditions necessary for ex cathedra teaching, then, says the Definition, he posses ses “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine.” But of course! Where else can infallibility come from, except from God? The best of human beings, and some Popes have been very good human beings, may be inerrant, i.e. make no mistakes, but as long as they have original sin they cannot be infallible as God alone can be. If they are infallible, the infallibility must come through, but from outside, their humanity, from God, who chooses to bestow it through the Catholic Church, and that infallibility need only be a momentary gift, for the duration of the Definition.

Therefore outside of a Pope’s ex cathedra moments, nothing stops him from talking nonsense such as the new religion of Vatican II. Therefore neither liberals nor sedevacantists need or should heed that nonsense, because, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, they have 2000 years’ worth of Ordinarily infallible Church teaching by which t o judge that it is nonsense.

Kyrie eleison.

I was a bit surprised to read this admission from his excellency in black and white. I do remember someone here commenting (was it John?) that "the bishop's theology wasn't Roman". I had thought at the time the comment was perhaps a bit harsh, but as is now apparent, the comment was spot on. I am as I said, astonished. It is not the theologians from the century leading up to the Vatican II council that were embroiled in a massive crisis in the Church and possibly confused about infallibility, that is us, we are in the midst of the crisis !! It seems to me the height of danger to 'depart' from the teachings of the approved theologians of the Church and start trying to invent something new. I can see nothing but trouble coming from this.

St Pius X, ora pro nobis

Luke

Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:42 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Latest EC 374

Thanks for this Luke. This sounds like Anglican garbage.

John, all I can say is that you are spot on about Williamson!

Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:02 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Latest EC 374

Bishop Tissier's writings are the only ones which are pretty clear on this topic, other than that I see nothing unique in +Williamson's views in his Anglican Ecclesiology. I would say semi-Anglican ecclesiology, if that can be a proper distinction. True straight up Anglican ecclesiology is the idea of the indult, whereby you have what is the High Anglican Church, broad Church, and low Church. A very "broad" form of unity, none of them having a fundamental unity of faith. Low Church is very liberal and ultra protestant, broad Church is the middle road and High Church tends to have pietistic Protestants.

However to the Good Bishop's credit, he is right, but for all the wrong reasons. Bishop Fellay is wrong, but for all the right reasons.

I would love to hear in any of the other postings I have made John, your comments on this.

I equally detest the suspicious nature of the Resistance etc... Slanting the truth, pushing comments too far, making insinuations etc... This is not a Catholic attitude, but the advice they give at the end of all that petty non-sense, is solid advice. That is they advocate to all the faithful 100% of the time the principle of tutiorism, therefore one cannot in good conscience seek sacraments from those doubtfully ordained. At the end of the day, being right does make a difference. What if God forbid, the Conciliarists had it right and we are truly schismatics... We might have erred in good faith, but at the end of the day. The truth changes everything, absolutely everything. The creature that is the traditionalist, ultimately depends on the licitness of the conclusions we have derived, without that we are nothing. We are thieves, robbers, wolves, and wicked. No amount of piety will change that fact, and even if we did it all under the worst form of ignorance and good faith possible. We will pay dearly in judgment day, if and I mean a BIG if we were wrong. Maybe be in purgatory for the end of time, maybe not enough to damn you. However, doing anything that displeases Our Divine Saviour such as this is grave matter.

Ultimately the dividing line is whether or not Vatican II is Catholic or not. Not just a little part of it being non-Catholic and most of it being Catholic. Also we can't pick and choose, we need to take it as a whole. Everything that stemmed from the principles of Vatican II and was passed as a law or approved to the Universal Church. If any of these does not pass the litmus test, then it really proves that we were right. Everything changes, once you see things with the proper perspective, what is ultimately true.

So the whole SSPX S.O. vs SSPX, easy win in my eyes. Resistance wins by far. Not even a contest, the reasons don't matter. We know that the differences in their conclusions, lead to either a practical outside indult (Neo-SSPX, to distinguish it from the position of +Lefebvre) or a practical sedevacantism (good, this is the resistance position).

Bishop Tissier's writings are the only ones which are pretty clear on this topic, other than that I see nothing unique in +Williamson's views in his Anglican Ecclesiology. I would say semi-Anglican ecclesiology, if that can be a proper distinction. True straight up Anglican ecclesiology is the idea of the indult, whereby you have what is the High Anglican Church, broad Church, and low Church. A very "broad" form of unity, none of them having a fundamental unity of faith. Low Church is very liberal and ultra protestant, broad Church is the middle road and High Church tends to have pietistic Protestants.

However to the Good Bishop's credit, he is right, but for all the wrong reasons. Bishop Fellay is wrong, but for all the right reasons.

I would love to hear in any of the other postings I have made John, your comments on this.

Well, perhaps it would help to consider the value of being right, and the value of being good, and how these affect each other.

Why is it good to be right? Because truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality. To know the truth is to be safe from the manifold disasters with which error is pregnant. To take a few obvious examples. If we were not to know the Church's teaching on purgatory, we would not pray for or give alms in the name of the departed, and they would be deprived of great goods; correspondingly, we would be deprived of great goods - especially the great good of having souls in heaven praying especially for us, their friends and benefactors. Or, if one were unaware of the unCatholic nature of the New Mass, one would continue to assist at it and have one's faith corroded and miss countless graces, etc.

So, the truth sets one free, and is a very great good in itself, and also for many practical reasons. God teaches us how to go to heaven. What could be a greater blessing?

What is the value of being good? Well, here we arrive at the summum bonum, indeed. God is love, and to be good is to love. To love perfectly is to be perfectly good. Truth is of immeasurable value; goodness and love, of infinite value.

All virtue, all moral good, is in the will. The intellect merely (I speak as one less wise) presents ideas for the attraction of the will. The will chooses from amongst these ideas. So that truth may be, and is, the foundation of a good act, but its perfection, its completion, is in the will. What is rewarded by God is goodness, not truth. The truth enables the moral good to be chosen, but it's the choice that is rewarded, not the knowledge of the truth that enabled that good choice.

Now these ideas underlie the comment of St. Augustine, "Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…" The heart is the will, in this text.

So, when you say that "[a]t the end of the day, being right does make a difference," you suggets a truth, but you speak ambiguously. What difference does it make, precisely, to be right? If you declare that John XXIII is burning in hell, you may well be right, but have you been good? Are you to be rewarded for being right, if it turns out that you are indeed right? All of Catholic tradition condemns such a declaration; to judge is for God alone. Our role is limited to finding the truth as it affects us, and then acting in accordance with it.

Consider what St. Augustine says about St. Cyprina, who was wrong about baptism, “putting on the bowels of humility through the moving influence of [Cyprian’s] discourse, if, in common with the Church at large, I entertain any doctrine more true than his, I will not prefer my heart to his, even in the point in which he, though holding different views, was yet not severed from the Church throughout the world. For in that, when that question was yet undecided for want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed from those of many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great moderation, that he would not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any stain of schism, a greater strength of excellence appeared in him than would have been shown if, without that virtue, he had held views on every point not only true, but coinciding with their own.”

That's a complicated paragraph. Study it, make it your own. It will reward careful and prayerful consideration. Even better, read the whole book: St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

What if God forbid, the Conciliarists had it right and we are truly schismatics... We might have erred in good faith, but at the end of the day. The truth changes everything, absolutely everything. The creature that is the traditionalist, ultimately depends on the licitness of the conclusions we have derived, without that we are nothing. We are thieves, robbers, wolves, and wicked. No amount of piety will change that fact, and even if we did it all under the worst form of ignorance and good faith possible. We will pay dearly in judgment day, if and I mean a BIG if we were wrong. Maybe be in purgatory for the end of time, maybe not enough to damn you. However, doing anything that displeases Our Divine Saviour such as this is grave matter.

We are not wrong, I have no doubt of that, it is manifestly clear that there are indeed two distinct entities at work here. The subjective only lessens the guilt, but does not eliminate the sin committed. It is by the objective truth, that God will formulate His Divine majestic judgments. My point is that it does matter the sort of theological foundations we have, they will ultimately be great aids in becoming Saints if we really desired to be holy. Is it the truth (the sedevacantist position)? Yes, it truly is the truth. We do not need to rely on conspiracy, or private revelation to arrive at our conclusions. The traditionalist is a creature that was a result from people wanting to keep the Catholic faith, now as to whether they have done everything properly, that is not necessarily always the case. You can be sure, that many did the best they possibly could given the knowledge and the circumstances they were given. I completely agree with your outline you have put in other posts, that the SSPX is an attempt to reconcile the reality of truth, and the principle of obedience. They chose the better part of the two, they just can't simply ignore that Vatican II is indeed full of errors and heresy with its ambiguous (I use this term as they understand it).

In the first place we have the Mystical Body of Christ, which is currently in eclipse, and by that term we mean that she is being blocked in some manner as regards to her visibility. Not that we suggest that she is completely invisible, no any person who attends a Catholic mass can see that we are quite visible too. It has simply become harder to find good solid traditional doctrine, and this is simply because of the nuclear modernist meltdown that has hit hard the Catholic souls all over the world.

Secondly, we have the apostate anti-Christ Church with her harlotry and ecumenism, a.k.a. as the Whore of Babylon. Very clearly we can recognize that this particular gnostic institution had a birthday (Vatican II), we can be able to trace back every one of her errors to a specific date, to those who are interested in studying the how/why/where/who/what has happened. We see a clear before/after picture of what true and counterfeit Catholicism looks like.

I do not claim to know the state of Roncalli's soul, that is not what I have ever disputed. Going to heaven, and being a canonized Saint are two total different arguments. Not everyone that goes to heaven is canonized, we do have some souls who were very sinful/scandalous/murderers and we know that many of them indeed did go to heaven, because of an honest deathbed conversion (Cantate Domino is clear, if not by the end of their life they are united to the Mystical Body, they will be damned). Yet, we do not see the Church holding them as great examples to be emulated, the only thing to be emulated by these individuals is one simple act (the most important one, their last act)... Some Saintly souls have attested that this has happened on numerous occasions, it may very well be that he had a death bed conversion (Roncalli). I don't have video footage of what happened in his deathbed (if there is I have not seen it). All I know is the objective facts that we can be able to study. It is HIGHLY and probably likely that he is indeed in hell, but that is all I can say about the matter. I am not the Judge, God alone is the one who knows best. I am fallible, because I do not know all the facts. God is omniscient, He knows the human heart perfectly and even better knows us better than we know ourselves.

John the liceity which we have, is strictly due to the fact that there are modernist occupiers to the Catholic see's all over the world. That is our whole reason to exist in the first place, we do not wish it for a second, but this is the reality. Sure I can be able to make the case, a very strong case why what we do is not only good, but Holy. Most people are not going to be convinced through intellectual means, for they have their own built in prejudices. A general apathy, lack of proper education (the very air you breathe now is filled with the most pestilent liberalism), and generally a total anti-Catholic world we live in. All of these multiple levels, work against the soul who is trying to find the truth of things. The Church has always said the enemies of mankind are the world, the flesh and the devil. So the external influence, internal disturbances (flesh) and the supernatural forces are all actively working towards your damnation.

Our Lord Jesus Christ has said,

Quote:

John 17:[16] They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

[21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. [25] Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me.

[26] And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.

In here we see that the truth is intimately connected to the mystery of the Trinity, and only those who believe in this truth can be sanctified. Only in truth is there a blessed Unity, which St. John draws a parallel to the unity of the Divine Trinity. Repeatedly, we see that true sheep will hear the voice of Christ. Yes, the truth must be the pillar and foundation of our faith. All those who are still Catholic inside of the Vatican II sect, are Catholic despite everything they have attempted to do to destroy their faith. Yes, depending on how much they know, they will be held accountable in differing degrees (God knows the difference). There are several factors that can be at play here: Literacy, married, single, raised Catholic, convert, if at any point they were ever taught the truth they will be accountable. Sometimes a doubt can take years to resolve, but once they doubt the gift of faith is preserved. We can be sure that a good majority who are in the resistance camp, definitely have doubts about the legitimacy of these men. We know that +Lefebvre definitely had serious enough doubts, and that this is precisely why he consecrated four men to the episcopacy.

John, I am confusing things here, but are you suggesting that somehow there is a lack of goodness in +Williamson. You keep trying to suggest that the resistance, by their slogans and campaigning against the SSPX are lacking that in that Goodness.

What I keep trying to tell you John, that they are doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. This ultimately makes a difference John! It definitely, lowers the guilt in the accusations they have unjustly made. I would say that their sin is more of detraction rather than slander, because many of the things they say are actually true, not all of them of course. I am not denying that there is a grave sin committed here, but it is definitely not mortal precisely because of what I have said before. Their cause is just, and the Neo-SSPX is committing far graver crimes than those in the Resistance. Even in the US if you work for an employer for 20 or x amount of years (it varies a little depending on the job and state), you are granted some sort of retirement. The SSPX has CONTINUALLY with no exceptions, that I have heard. When it kicks out a priest (on a whim, and with little notice) who has been faithfully working for them, kicks them out with not even a pretend canonical process and leaves them on the street. Maybe you need to go look back in your moral theology book John, because as far as I am concerned. Slander/detraction does not compare to sins crying out to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a man his daily wages is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, now imagine several years worth? I know personally several priests that have had such a situation, this is not even an issue dealing directly with religion, but basic natural law here. Basic human decency... Even progressive/anarchist atheists believe that it is just to give compensation for work done in the past... Ohh before someone makes the argument, none of these priest have been kicked out, because of indecency/immorality or heresy. For if such was the case, then yes they should not be financially supported. I know a Franciscan here in El Paso, that is an atheist but simply stayed inside the Vatican II sect, to get retirement he figured that he has done this for so long. That he can't simply work in anything else, so he just stayed a few extra years and is being cared for by the community.

Suppose we follow the advice that the SSPX superiors tell the faithful to do, which is NOT to attend mass and not to FINANCIALLY support a priest who they do not agree with. So not only are they defrauding him of his wages, but preventing him from being a priest! Ultimately, if the faithful were to follow "their pastors" on this particular issue, it would in many cases lead to the apostasy of the priest, he has to now work a secular job, where the salvation of his soul can be endangered. Do you think working a 9 to 5 job, would allow a priest to pray his full breviary which he must do daily under pain of mortal sin, excepting extraordinary circumstances of course. I would not have mentioned this, but since you keep making it seem like the Neo-SSPX is somehow virtuous. I bring this up, in order that people might have a proper/balance perspective on what is truly at stake here. I bring you apples to apples (moral inadequacy), and in addition to that point, I prove that the SSPX resistance spiritual advice, is indeed conducive to the Sedevacantist position/cause, which is the better Catholic position. Plain and simple, how many people you hear have become full blown sedevacantists precisely because of the resistance form of preaching. They don't realize and know it, but it really seems to work. They set up in the minds of the faithful all the right premises, and simply don't follow the erroneous conclusions that the SSPX resistance believes. When you are calling left and right, the man in white a heretic. It kind of makes the faithful realize, and makes it easier for them to come to their own conclusions. When you listen to the Neo-SSPX soft style preaching, anything true they say is immediately undone a second later, by some apologetic way in which we must understand what they said (the New rites are certainly valid, BUT there might be the super hypothetical case in which they are invalid). They defend, downplay, ignore, reject all the acts/deeds of the heretics in the Vatican II sect. If they were to accept them as true, then they know it logically leads to that position they so much hate. To them all that matters is that +Lefebvre did not die as a SV'ist, everything else is irrelevant to them.

On a separate note, a correction I must make:

Now I would like to correct a theological statement that I have made in the forum. I am sure its contained implicitly in some of the responses I have given. Anyways I was a bit surprised when I was reading the Summa and I found this, there are others who hold a similar position (other scholatics). Thus this would mean, that to those who were operating in good faith and confessed to Novus ordo presiders,their confessions would be valid, assuming that they have the right dispositions that you would need for a sacramental confession to be valid. However, as must be noted as soon as one is aware that they confessed to another layman. They should stop receiving the sacraments contrary to what the SSPX holds. Now I know this, because this was the advice that was given to me by the SSPX priest when I told him I have serious doubts about the validity of my previous confessions. The priest told me to continue to receive the sacraments, which I should not have been receiving, until of course I make a general confession to a Catholic priest. The important thing is that once you are fully aware that they are indeed laymen, then we must finish a true and proper confession when circumstances permit. This is the Thomist position, and this is already what I have recommended before, but this is much clearer, than my previous position was on the specific topic. I was mistaken, and I am more than happy to show where I have erred.

So the difference between the Thomist position and mine was:

I said that confessions to Novus ordo presiders are invalid, unless excepting cases of perfect contrition. Whereas the Thomist position, says that they would be valid despite the man not being a priest, but he makes it perfectly clear that once you have real priests around, you must confess to a real priest, the sins confessed to the layman. It is a slight difference, but the consequences are grave. It indeed strengthens the case that God truly desires that ALL men be saved, no matter the circumstances, any good willed individual, who LOVES much will be saved. That much you can take for granted, God will never abandon a soul that is truly desirous of His grace, but remember all of this is rooted in a true act of faith. Bad willed heretics, will go where they belong with the father of lies.

I answer that, Just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is Penance. And Baptism, through being a necessary sacrament has a twofold minister: one whose duty it is to baptize, in virtue of his office, viz. the priest, and another, to whom the conferring of Baptism is committed, in a case of necessity. In like manner the minister of Penance, to whom, in virtue of his office, confession should be made, is a priest; but in a case of necessity even a layman may take the place of a priest, and hear a person's confession.

Reply to Objection 1: But when there is reason for urgency, the penitent should fulfill his own part, by being contrite and confessing to whom he can; and although this person cannot perfect the sacrament, so as to fulfill the part of the priest by giving absolution, yet this defect is supplied by the High Priest. Nevertheless confession made to a layman, through lack* of a priest, is quasi-sacramental, although it is not a perfect sacrament, on account of the absence of the part which belongs to the priest.Reply to Objection 3:Consequently although the man who, in a case of necessity, has confessed to a layman, has received forgiveness from God, for the reason that he fulfilled, so far as he could, the purpose which he conceived in accordance with God's command, he is not yet reconciled to the Church, so as to be admitted to the sacraments, unless he first be absolved by a priest, even as he who has received the Baptism of desire, is not admitted to the Eucharist. Wherefore he must confess again to a priest, as soon as there is one at hand, and the more so since, as stated above (ad 1), the sacrament of Penance was not perfected, and so it needs yet to be perfected, in order that by receiving the sacrament, the penitent may receive a more plentiful effect, and that he may fulfill the commandment about receiving the sacrament of Penance.

Now the reason I bring this up, we see that the most necessary sacraments for salvation to any person of good will, God will grant the necessary effect through a real faith and desire to receive them. So we see this in Baptism, Penance, and Matrimony. That if the circumstances are grave enough and an ordinary minister cannot be found, God would supply the defect. This totally shatters completely the assertion that God does not care for us, or that His graces are insufficient for salvation. We can see that true theology understands these principles very well, and it simply amazes me how any good willed person can truly be saved. That charity does indeed matter, and he who loves much (much will be forgiven them). Notice that this charity is rooted in the truth, all the time and every time. That the person had doubts because of the confusion, does not mean they are not rooted in the truth. Yes they are, God sees that they desired to be Catholics, and only Catholics. They wanted to be a part of His Mystical Body, but a bunch of wicked heretics only confused them more. If they were not culpable whatsoever, then this will not be held as a sin to them. I can see that this was more true back then, than it is right now. Nevertheless even currently, there are some who might qualify. For example, if someone does not have any books, lives in the worst form of poverty possible, suffer from illiteracy they will not be held as accountable to say someone like myself that has had the chance to study these matters etc... ____________

John a brief response to your recommendation of reading more on the topic of donatism. If there is a topic that I am familiar with is precisely these two, Novatianism and Donatism. I will re-read whatever you recommend, and I will re-read again if it is necessary. That is all I have to say on that, I hate schism and I detest it wherever the spirit of schism is fomented. We must always keep the bonds of faith and charity, even to the point where we must give the Catholic benefit of the doubt to the faithful where there is a serious doubt whether or not they are indeed heretics in particular cases. Always err on the safe side... Once you are convinced that such an individual is indeed a heretic, that means you cannot even say grace with that person. It is very serious and it must not be taken lightly. If we erred on the safe side praying grace, or a rosary with someone who is an undeclared heretic will not excommunicate you from the Church. Especially if you have a doubt, as to the certainty of your conclusions. The main thing you are looking for when forming judgments, is simple. Is the individual massively confused on the topic, or is he decided on the matter already? If he is full on board with heresy/apostasy, nay even defending it, without the slightest scruple. Then yes, it is pretty clear...

The subjective only lessens the guilt, but does not eliminate the sin committed.

That's bad theology. Do you understand and accept this principle of St. Thomas? "For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental."

And in case you don't grasp it and you imagine that he is speaking only of subjective guilt, he is speaking specifically about schism. Here is that principle in context.

St. Thomas wrote:

As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name "from being a scission of minds," and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.

Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…

As soon as we start speaking about schism or heresy and membership in the Church, we must consider two categories of persons: 1. Those raised in the faith of their baptism, and 2. Those raised in schism or heresy.

The second category are not members of the Church, their subjective dispositions notwithstanding.

Of those raised in the faith of their baptism, only those depart from the Church (i.e. lose their membership) who are morally guilty of the crime of heresy or schism, and this guilt is public.

None of this controversial so please don't dispute it unless you can quote clear testimony from authorised sources.

As anybody can see, this doctrine brings into account the subjective dispositions of men (insofar as these are evidenced externally) as an essential element in the question of membership in the Church, a purely external question in itself. I know that is a complicated sentence, and I understand that the concepts expressed by it turn some people's heads inside out, but I have no patience at all for people who cannot get it clear setting themselves up to preach to others about it. It actually isn't that hard to grasp, but it requires abandoning one's prejudices and simply accepting what the Church teaches.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

I do not claim to know the state of Roncalli's soul, that is not what I have ever disputed.

I know. I was merely grabbing a question of fact about which there can be legitimate dispute as a fact, and pointing out that "being right" still equals "being bad." I'm trying to break open your head and insert some principles that appear to me to be absent.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

John the liceity which we have, is strictly due to the fact that there are modernist occupiers to the Catholic see's all over the world. That is our whole reason to exist in the first place, we do not wish it for a second, but this is the reality.

Nope, that's not right. The liceity of our actions is that we are strictly bound to obey the laws of the Church, doctrinal, disciplinary, and liturgical. We cannot obey contrary commands, even from legitimate superiors. We are not permitted to "obey" contrary commands. Such commands would not be laws, but rather, acts of violence, as St. Thomas teaches, quoting St. Augustine. "Obeying" them would be disobedient.

The observation that our "ordinary" is not truly our ordinary, or our "pope" not truly our pope, is subsequent to and dependent upon that first question, the lawfulness (and therefore the validity) of the commands that these men give. If they are not office-holders in the Church it is because they are not Catholics, and this is known because they give commands that are contrary to the faith, and obstinately insist upon their position even in the face of open refusal by the faithful and clergy.

It is not the absence of true authority on the part of those men which constitutes the lawful foundation of our actions; indeed, if that were the case there could be no lawful refusal of commands from an ordinary until he were determined with certitude to be a heretic and to have lost his office, yet in some or many cases this certitude is impossible to achieve - and it was impossible to achieve in most cases in 1966, for example.

If you understand these principles, you will see why I am determined to discredit the doctrine of Fr. Cekada and others like him who invert all of this. I get accused of being primarily interested in defending the SSPX, or sedeplenists generally, whereas this is all a fruit of my ideas, not a motive driver of them. My primary motive is to defend tradition and traditionalists, and the bad ideas being spread around by sedes are a clear and present danger to both.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

In here we see that the truth is intimately connected to the mystery of the Trinity, and only those who believe in this truth can be sanctified.

Yes, but your ideas are not true, they are false.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

John, I am confusing things here, but are you suggesting that somehow there is a lack of goodness in +Williamson. You keep trying to suggest that the resistance, by their slogans and campaigning against the SSPX are lacking that in that Goodness.

Oh, I'm definitely saying that their actions are bad, not good.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

What I keep trying to tell you John, that they are doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. This ultimately makes a difference John!

I'm not interested in their moral guilt, and I disagree entirely that ends and means can rightly be dis-integrated. Ends do not justify means. Further, as I pointed earlier, St. Cyprian was WRONG for the right reasons, and that is perfectly compatible with sanctity. But being right for the wrong reasons, that is sheer immorality. According to St. Thomas (see above) the rightness of the position or judgement is accidental if the motives and principles are bad.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

The SSPX has CONTINUALLY with no exceptions, that I have heard. When it kicks out a priest (on a whim, and with little notice) who has been faithfully working for them, kicks them out with not even a pretend canonical process and leaves them on the street. Maybe you need to go look back in your moral theology book John, because as far as I am concerned. Slander/detraction does not compare to sins crying out to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a man his daily wages is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, now imagine several years worth? I know personally several priests that have had such a situation, this is not even an issue dealing directly with religion, but basic natural law here.

You are very confused. Let's say all of that is true (it's disputable in fact). Would this justify accusing Bishop Fellay of doing secret deals, seeking to sell out, lying, etc? No. If you or somebody else has an issue over some question of justice, make that point and move on.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:29 am

Mike Larson

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:48 pmPosts: 52

Re: Latest EC 374

John Lane wrote:

If you understand these principles, you will see why I am determined to discredit the doctrine of Fr. Cekada and others like him who invert all of this. I get accused of being primarily interested in defending the SSPX, or sedeplenists generally, whereas this is all a fruit of my ideas, not a motive driver of them. My primary motive is to defend tradition and traditionalists, and the bad ideas being spread around by sedes are a clear and present danger to both.

John, which do you think presents the greatest danger to tradition and traditionalists, and which do you think presents the least danger, and why?

Traditionalism that operates within (and with the approval of) the Novus Ordo structure.

If you wish to break any of the three groups down further with more distinctions, I would welcome that as well.

Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:05 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Latest EC 374

Dear Mike,

My outlook is rather pragmatic, if conditioned by what I believe to be sound theoretical principles. I would sum up my view as aiming for safety, above all. So what does that entail in the current circumstances?

Avoiding all novel liturgical or sacramental rites on the basis that these are doubtful at best, so avoiding the New Mass and all clergy ordained by bishops with Novus Ordo rite pedigree. We don't trust the New Mass, so why would we trust anything else that came from the same people? I simply don't get the whole indult mentality. It looks to me to be both intellectually inconsistent as well as potentially prideful - e.g. "I have judged the New Mass to be defective, and the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be valid." Rejecting the New Mass as not lawfully permitted or imposed is not a position of pride, it is a position of humble obedience to established, undoubted, law. But to decide that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is certainly valid requires acting either inconsistently (I can reject the New Mass but I am not permitted to reject the other new rites because they came from the Church - HUH????) or worse, setting oneself up as lay theologian with the competence to judge with the certitude sufficient for salvation a new sacramental rite. It beggars belief that anybody could have such impertinence.

Avoiding all judgements of persons that are not truly necessary - which means, nearly all such judgements. I need to know whether Bergoglio is pope, and to know that I need to know if he's a Catholic; he once was a Catholic, so I am forced to form a judgement that he departed from or remained in the Church. This is a reluctant judgement made out of definite necessity.

Avoiding making any uncertain judgements or opinions a reason for sacrificing peace with others.

So the danger of the Indult traditionalist thinking is that it universally regards the New Orders as valid, and any questioning of them as schismatic or at least sinful. This is the way to expose yourself unnecessarily to extreme danger.

The danger of the sedeplenist position is largely latent, that is, it does not usually manifest itself. The danger is as above, that potentially invalid sacraments might be accessed. I say, it is largely latent, but not wholely so - every now and again a New Rite ordained priest appears as a cooperator with SSPX clergy, for example, and so this must be watched for.

The sedevacantist milieu is such a mixed bag that it's hard to say anything universally applicable about it. There exists a real danger of schism (Palmar, or Bishop Vezelis), and there exists an even greater risk of extremist thought which wrecks peace of soul and results in available masses and sacraments being avoided for no truly good reason. The anti-un-cum campaign feeds into this, obviously. Likewise the point you have noted above is a real danger - the bad analysis of the traditionalist position which denies that we are obliged to reject the New Mass or the other reforms of Vatican II until and unless we reject the claims of the Conciliar Nopes. The preaching of this doctrine, and its popularisation under the heading "Recognise and Resist" with the characterisation of that as unlawful refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, pushes the faithful back to the Indult or Ecclesia Dei milieu. I consider that an absolute disaster, whereas the sede apologists concerned regard it as a victory for the faith! Their mantra, "If he's your pope then you better obey him!" is a slogan without substance, because these people will never identify any command that the Nopes have given and which would oblige the faithful if their authority were real. It is always merely assumed that the New Mass was imposed authoritatively in law, when in fact it has been shown that it was not (by Fr. Wathen). Likewise the doctrines of Vatican II, etc.

I am aware of one case in which a priest raised in a trad family, ordained by the SSPX, and with no contact with the Novus Ordo at all until he had been a priest for quite a few years, but with sede relatives who put to him the whole "Recognise and Resist is unCatholic" position (I debated this priest in person on the "una cum" and he was completely convinced of it - he thought I was inconsistent for coming to his mass!), abandoned the SSPX and went back to his diocese, where he now offers the New Mass. He thinks he is being "consistent" and truly Catholic, in accord with Fr. Cekada's doctrine, and so do his sede relatives! I know where his ideas came from, I know what effect they have had, and I see clearly why. What a mess.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:46 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Latest EC 374

Mike, I will add that the over-arching thought that governs all of this is very simple - what enables a man to live in the state of grace and achieve salvation?

The answer to that governs all else. So we must maintain the faith; we must fulfil our duties, including the Sunday obligation; we must pray, recieve the sacraments as often as possible; we must keep clear of dangers, moral and spiritual; in a word, practice our religion.

If you examine all of the comments I have made on controverted questions, they are all informed by this outlook. The revolution created chaos in the Church, and created enormous difficulties for the faithful. The devil is as happy to deprive somebody of the goods of the Church through despair leading to apostasy, or through error leading to home-alonism, which as a result of no grace from Holy Mass or the sacraments, makes a morally upright life virtually impossible, I would think. He is as happy to ensnare an individual through a mistaken belief that he must believe in ecumenism and religious liberty as he is to convince somebody that non-sedes are outside the Church. Heresy, or schism, or any other unrepented mortal sin, would it matter to Satan?

Too many today are wanting to solve all of the problems in the Church in such a way that they neglect their own souls. Men who profess to be concerned with the purity of sacred doctrine express crass errors against sacred doctrine which they could easily learn in any number of good books which are freely available with a few clicks of their mouse. Men who attack the errors of Vatican II as contrary to the faith and to good morals, are willing at a moment's irritation to blurt out the worst calumnies against their fellow Catholics. Men who lament the withdrawal of the graces of the true Mass from the bulk of the faithful proceed to argue, upon completely non-traditional grounds, that it would be sinful to assist at the true Mass being offered down the street.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:07 pm

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Latest EC 374

John, your last two posts are excellent!

Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:41 pm

Mike Larson

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:48 pmPosts: 52

Re: Latest EC 374

John, thanks for the explanation. In general, I agree with you. That is to say, I loathe the factions within traditionalism (though I understand why they exist), and I try to focus on things essential to Catholic subsistence: the true mass, the true sacraments, true catechesis and preaching, true disciplinary practices, and so on. If a Catholic has knowledge of, and access to, these things on a regular basis, as well as the will to receive and embrace them, then he stands in good hope of his salvation.

In fact, the evidence of this focus for me--a focus that I think you and I share--is that when I first found tradition, 11 years ago, I found the sedevacantist question irrelevant. I left the Novus Ordo because I somehow (by grace, no doubt) perceived the danger to my and my family's souls. It was necessary to reject the one (Novus Ordo) in order to embrace the other (Catholicism). But I did not see then, nor do I see now, the same necessity with regard to declaring on the sede vacante thesis. In other words, it is possible to assist at the true mass, to receive the true sacraments, to hear true catechesis and preaching, to follow the precepts of the true church, and so on, without declaring, one way or the other, about the occupancy status of the Chair of Peter.

Nevertheless, I have arrived at the sedevacantist opinion, and part of the reason is that I did in fact become aware of what I can only refer to as the dangers of holding the sedeplenist opinion while living outside the Novus Ordo structure. In short, this position encourages, over time, a very strange (and non-Catholic) attitude toward Holy Mother Church. If you accept that the men of the new order actually do hold the posts they appear to hold, yet you live as a Catholic apart from them and their acts, you are left with all kinds of conundrums. Either you learn to reject what you consider to be their extraordinary and ordinary magisterial teaching, or you deny that they have taught infallibly at all in these last 50 years, using loopholes like the lack of ex cathedra papal statements, the "pastoral" nature of Vatican II, and so on. But either way, you learn to disdain that which you call the Church. You come to believe, slowly, that the Church can err, if not formally, at least in practice. The implication, whether the individual sedeplenist traditionalist cares to think it through or not, is that the Church is not a divine institution but a human one. This is a problem.

So while I agree with you that a latent threat of this position might be the eventual exposure to invalid sacraments, I do not see that as the primary concern. My view of the danger is as I have described it in the paragraph above, and this threat is not latent but active at some level all the while one holds the sedeplenist traditionalist view. I do not say this in a condemnatory way. I attend a Society of St. Pius X chapel myself, and I know many--priests and laity alike--who hold this view. And they are dear to me. But I do not think it is a safe view.

On the other hand, I confess I know next to nothing about the various factions of sedevacantism. I agree with the general conclusion, but I make no corresponding anathemas toward sedeplenists, and I do not yet know enough about the varieties of sedevacantism to distinguish their degrees of danger.

As for the "extraordinary rite" crowd, apart from exposure to invalid sacraments, they are in danger of believing in a disunified Church, one that can cater to modernists on the one hand and traditionalists on the other. The natural result is that they are then also susceptible to the notion that liturgy, worship, sacraments, and so forth, are matters of taste and preference, not matters pertaining to objective truth.

So I guess when I examine traditionalist circles for potential dangers, I tend to think about the effects of a particular situation over time on the average parishioner's view of the Church herself, what she is and how exactly she is to be his mother. If there are sedevacantist communities who are smug and self-righteous, then those too are dangerous, not perhaps due to false or inconsistent theology but rather to the incitement of religious pride--ugly in any stripe.

As you say, a mess all around: it's easy to point out dangers associated with all three groups, but each has some merits to recommend it as well. The trick, I think, is to accurately weigh the nature of the dangers so that one can access true Catholic basics (mass, sacraments, catechesis) without distorting one's understanding of the Church. Easier said perhaps than done.

Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:49 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Latest EC 374

Mike, you've summarised it beautifully. I would add the half-humorous comment that it would be great to convince somebody of sedevacantism if one didn't then face the prospect of sending them to the sedevacantists!

Just pondering this a little further, perhaps my own preference for the SSPX, apart from the fact that I know the sede clergy and the SSPX clergy*, is that the considerations we both find compelling - essentially ecclesiological ones - are not the theological atmosphere of the sedevacantist milieu either. Ironic, but true. Fr. Sanborn did some good work opening up these questions twenty or more years ago, but since then, the relevant points of interest have died. Nobody is really trying to solve "the problem of the Church" and Fr. Cekada has revealed that his own theory is contrary to the continuing existence of the hierarchy (actually, worse - he says that Bishop Dolan is a true Successor of the Apostles!).

The fact is that the "sedeplenist" theory as a whole - apart from the specific question of Paul VI's status - was true in 1964, and was still true in 1974, in that some significant proportion of the bishops remained Catholics and therefore held their offices, and so the Church remained exactly where it had always been, yet obscured by the New Church and in the physical realm, actually mixed up with it. The situation has partially, progressively, been clarified over time, but it hasn't been finally sorted. It's an ongoing mystery. And if it was true in 1970 that the New Mass was unlawful, then that remains true today, so standing upon that basis isn't "looking for a loophole."

* NB I am happy to point people to the CMRI clergy or to Frs. Zapp, Collins, Ahern, and others. I add this in case my comments are misunderstood.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum